Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gemini-mcp-server

gemini-mcp-server

by mnthe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_video

Check the progress of a video generation. Returns status: running (wait ~30s), completed with file paths, or failed with error.

Instructions

Check the status of a video generation operation. Returns status: 'running' (still generating), 'completed' (with saved file paths), or 'failed' (with error). If status is 'running', wait ~30 seconds before checking again. Completed videos are saved to /root/Videos/gemini-generated.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operationId": "<operationId>"
    },
    "name": "check_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operationIdYesOperation ID returned by generate_video

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses polling behavior, possible statuses ('running', 'completed', 'failed'), and the output location for completed videos. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words, key information front-loaded. Efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, polling guidance, and output location. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the single parameter 'operationId' with 100% coverage. The description adds context by linking it to generate_video, which is helpful. While it doesn't add extensive new information, it clarifies usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks the status of a video generation operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_video, which initiates an operation, by focusing on polling for completion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (after generate_video) and provides polling guidance (wait ~30 seconds if status is 'running'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context makes it clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools